A question for believers, is God a gas?

[Anna B]

Yes, love is just the name we give to a whole range of behavioural and chemical changes that happen in the body, it isn't a 'thing' as such, and will be different for each person.

 

The evidence for 'love' is absolutely overwhelming however, and would suffice as pretty strong proof for its existence.

 

Firstly, practically everybody on earth will have experienced it personally, and will have felt the effects of being 'in love'. Before anybody says 'Yes, but billions of people feel and believe they speak to god, so that proves god', no - that proves faith, not god. In this argument, the equivalent to love is faith. Nobody denies that faith exists.

 

Secondly, we can measure the effects that love has. We can measure how behaviour changes, we can see how people change when they are 'in love'. We can look throughout history at irrational decisions that people have made because they were 'in love'. Again, this is true for faith.

 

Thirdly, we have the chemical and brain changes (measurably by MRI) that we can evidence. We can see that when somebody is 'in love' there are physical changes in their body, such as different areas of the brain will light up than would normally if they were looking at someone they didn't love. Levels of certain chemicals change also.

 

We also have the evolutionary argument, which is strong proof. We understand now why we have evolved to love, why it is beneficial for our species to form strong bonds with the person we are procreating with (as humans are useless for the first years of life, we are better off when we have two parents). Again, there may well be an evolutionary argument for faith (I think there is), as to why belief in something higher proved beneficial as we started to make societies.

 

All of these things amount to strong proof that love is real. In light of these, that we can feel it ourselves, that we can see behavioural change when other people feel it, that we can look throughout history and see evidence of things caused by it, and we have an evolutionary argument for it, it would be an extraordinary claim to say that love didn't exist. You would have to explain away all of those points. The same goes for faith.

 

To say that loves does exist, one merely has to reference all those points as strong evidence. Proof merely means that there is sufficient evidence or argument that what is being claimed is correct. It does not need to be absolute, and there are some that would argue that absolute 100% proof of anything is impossible.

 

I think we therefore have a strong and sufficient argument, and strong and sufficient evidence that love exists, which amounts to proof.

 

Every one of those points could apply equally to a belief in God.

[Robin-H]

Every one of those points could apply equally to a belief in God.

 

This is precisely the point I made in that comment.

 

Yes, every one of those points can apply to a belief in god. Nobody is claiming that nobody believes in god.

 

None of them however could be used as proof of god. That is precisely the point.

[FinBak]

This is precisely the point I made in that comment.

 

Yes, every one of those points can apply to a belief in god. Nobody is claiming that nobody believes in god.

 

None of them however could be used as proof of god. That is precisely the point.

 

How can you prove something/anything that is 'Supernatural'?

 

Answer = You can't.!

[Guest makapaka]

Yes, love is just the name we give to a whole range of behavioural and chemical changes that happen in the body, it isn't a 'thing' as such, and will be different for each person.

 

The evidence for 'love' is absolutely overwhelming however, and would suffice as pretty strong proof for its existence.

 

Firstly, practically everybody on earth will have experienced it personally, and will have felt the effects of being 'in love'. Before anybody says 'Yes, but billions of people feel and believe they speak to god, so that proves god', no - that proves faith, not god. In this argument, the equivalent to love is faith. Nobody denies that faith exists.

 

Secondly, we can measure the effects that love has. We can measure how behaviour changes, we can see how people change when they are 'in love'. We can look throughout history at irrational decisions that people have made because they were 'in love'. Again, this is true for faith.

 

Thirdly, we have the chemical and brain changes (measurably by MRI) that we can evidence. We can see that when somebody is 'in love' there are physical changes in their body, such as different areas of the brain will light up than would normally if they were looking at someone they didn't love. Levels of certain chemicals change also.

 

We also have the evolutionary argument, which is strong proof. We understand now why we have evolved to love, why it is beneficial for our species to form strong bonds with the person we are procreating with (as humans are useless for the first years of life, we are better off when we have two parents). Again, there may well be an evolutionary argument for faith (I think there is), as to why belief in something higher proved beneficial as we started to make societies.

 

All of these things amount to strong proof that love is real. In light of these, that we can feel it ourselves, that we can see behavioural change when other people feel it, that we can look throughout history and see evidence of things caused by it, and we have an evolutionary argument for it, it would be an extraordinary claim to say that love didn't exist. You would have to explain away all of those points. The same goes for faith.

 

To say that loves does exist, one merely has to reference all those points as strong evidence. Proof merely means that there is sufficient evidence or argument that what is being claimed is correct. It does not need to be absolute, and there are some that would argue that absolute 100% proof of anything is impossible.

 

I think we therefore have a strong and sufficient argument, and strong and sufficient evidence that love exists, which amounts to proof.

 

How about love for a football team?

[RootsBooster]

How can you prove something/anything that is 'Supernatural'?

 

Answer = You can't.!

 

If it can affect the natural world then it will be measurable, so you should be able to prove it.

 

If it doesn't have any measurable effect, what reason would you have to believe in it?

Edited March 4, 2018 by RootsBooster

[FinBak]

If it can affect the natural world then it will be measurable, so you should be able to prove it.

 

Ahh, the great 'IT'... But can you prove 'it' was GOD that had the effect?

[Anna B]

Here is God. More chance of this been true than not.

 

 

Angel1.

 

Possibly could be something to do with life on earth, but that's not the isssue. Who created the spaceman? Or the most fundamental question of all that even science can't answer; if, according to the laws of physics, energy can neither be created nor destoyed, where did the energy / matter created in the 'big bang' originally come from?

[RootsBooster]

Ahh, the great 'IT'... But can you prove 'it' was GOD that had the effect?

 

What is the effect?

[FinBak]

What is the effect?

 

The effect is what anyone can make of 'it'.

 

There are no rules.

 

'It' can be anything you want it to be.

[Robin-H]

How about love for a football team?

 

The same things apply.

 

The evolutionary argument may be slightly different, but again there is an evolutionary explanation as to why strong feelings of attachment to a group, and the development of common interests and outcomes, would have been beneficial for our societal development.